Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (# G-2021-16755), Fred Kavli Endowment Fund, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (# 10483), Heising-Simons Foundation (# 2021-3112), National Institutes of Health (# HHSN263201800029I/75N98021F00012), National Science Foundation (# OIA-2050485), Ralph J. Cicerone and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions, Rita Allen Foundation (unnumbered), and The Shanahan Family Charitable Foundation (W911NF-CODE). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69669-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69669-0
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26803
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023935330
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, and Equity Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26803.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON ADVANCING ANTIRACISM, DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION IN STEM ORGANIZATIONS
GILDA A. BARABINO1,2 (Co-Chair), Olin College of Engineering
SUSAN T. FISKE3 (Co-Chair), Princeton University
DAVID J. ASAI, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
FAY COBB PAYTON, North Carolina State University
NILANJANA DASGUPTA, The University of Massachusetts at Amherst
MICA ESTRADA, University of California, San Francisco
MIRIAN M. GRADDICK-WEIR, AT&T Corporation, Bedminster, NJ
GIOVANNA GUERRERO-MEDINA, Ciencia Puerto Rico; Wu Tsai Institute, Yale School of Medicine
CAMARA P. JONES, Morehouse School of Medicine
SAMUEL R. LUCAS, University of California, Berkeley
JULIE POSSELT, University of Southern California
VICTOR E. RAY, The University of Iowa
JOAN Y REEDE, Harvard Medical School
KARL W. REID, National Society of Black Engineers
CYNTHIA N. SPENCE, Spelman College
KECIA M. THOMAS, The University of Alabama at Birmingham
M. ROY WILSON, Wayne State University
SWEENEY WINDCHIEF, Montana State University
Study Staff
LAYNE SCHERER, Study Director
EMILY A. VARGAS, Program Officer
JACQUELINE L. COLE, Senior Program Assistant
KENNE A. DIBNER, Senior Program Officer
ANDRÉ PORTER, Senior Program Officer
Consultant
JOSEPH ALPER, Consultant
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Medicine
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering
3 Member, National Academy of Science
BOARD ON BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, AND SENSORY SCIENCES
TERRIE E. MOFFITT,4 (Chair), Duke University
RICHARD N. ASLIN,5 Haskins Laboratories
JOHN BAUGH, Washington University, St. Louis
WILSON S. GEISLER, The University of Texas at Austin
MICHELE J. GELFAND, Stanford Graduate School of Business
ULRICH MAYR, University of Oregon
KATHERINE L. MILKMAN, The University of Pennsylvania
ELIZABETH A. PHELPS, Harvard University
DAVID E. POEPPEL, New York University
STACEY SINCLAIR, Princeton University
TIMOTHY J. STRAUMAN, Duke University
DANIEL J. WEISS, Director
___________________
4 Member, National Academy of Medicine
5 Member, National Academy of Science
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by WESLEY L. HARRIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and ELLEN WRIGHT CLAYTON, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
This report reflects contributions from a number of individuals and groups. The committee takes this opportunity to recognize those who so generously gave their time and expertise to inform its deliberations.
To begin, the committee would like to thank the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Fred Kavli Endowment Fund, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Ralph J. Cicerone and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions, Rita Allen Foundation, and The Shanahan Family Charitable Foundation for their sponsorship, guidance, and support of this study.
The committee greatly benefited from the opportunity for discussion with individuals who attended and presented at the open session meetings. The committee thanks these individuals for their time and the candid perspectives they provided.
The committee could not have done its work without the support and guidance provided by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine project staff: Layne Scherer, study director; Emily A. Vargas, program officer; Jacqueline L. Cole, senior program assistant; Kenne A. Dibner, senior program officer; and André Porter, senior program officer. We appreciate Patrick Burke for his financial assistance on this project and gratefully acknowledge Daniel J. Weiss of the National Academies’ Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences for his guidance.
Many other staff within the National Academies provided support to this project in various ways. The committee would like to thank Laura Castillo-Page, Heidi Schweingruber, Vaughan Turekian, Michael Hout, Margarita Alegria, Rebecca Morgan, Terrie Moffitt, Patty Morison, and
Bea Porter for their expertise and support throughout the life cycle of this research study and report.
This committee is grateful to the research assistants and commissioned paper authors that generously contributed to this body of work: Ogechi Adele (Princeton University); Yolore Airewele (Princeton University); Jessica Brice (University of Washington); Alison Hall Birch (University of Texas-Arlington); Krystle P. Cobian (University of California, Los Angeles); Jennifer S. Fang (University of California, Irvine); Dana Harris (Yale University); Leezet Matos (University of California, Los Angeles); OiYan Poon (Colorado State University); Tiffany Smith (AISES); and Gloriana Trujillo (Stanford University).
In addition to the contributions above, a great number of stakeholders offered resources, expertise, and insight to support the committee’s work. These include the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Dawn Bennet-Alexander (Practical Diversity); Charles Bridges (CorVista); Alex Cortez (Bellwether Education Partners); James Jones (University of Delaware); Fidan Kurtulus (University of Massachusetts); Lisa Leslie (New York University); Roman Liera (Montclair State University); Jennifer Martineau (Leap and Inspire Global); Sanaz Mobasseri (Boston University); Lincoln Quillian (Northwestern University); Kenneth Ridgway (Purdue University); Aaron Thomas (University of Montana); and Alicia Nicki Washington (Duke University).
REDLINING AND UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
STEMM: A REFLECTION AND REPRODUCTION OF BROADER BIASED STRUCTURES
3 Population Data and Demographics in the United States
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, RACIAL CATEGORIES, AND LIMITATIONS
REPRESENTATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY IN U.S. STEMM HIGHER EDUCATION
4 Lived Experiences and Other Ways of Knowing in STEMM
INTERVIEWS: LIVED EXPERIENCES OF BLACK STEMM PROFESSIONALS
NATURE OF EVIDENCE: MULTIPLE METHODS OF GATHERING KNOWLEDGE
SOCIAL COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF RACIAL BIAS
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
PHYSICAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF BEING THE TARGET OF RACISM
RACE-BASED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
STRATEGIES FOR EXITING: DISIDENTIFICATION AND PASSING
STRATEGIES FOR FITTING IN AND SURVIVING: GRIT, RESILIENCE, AND CODESWITCHING
COLLECTIVELY MOBILIZING TO TRANSFORM THE DOMINANT STEMM CULTURE
HOW STEMM PROFESSIONALS CAN HELP
SIGNAL INCLUSION THROUGH NUMERIC REPRESENTATION AND SPATIAL DESIGN OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS
BUILD PEER RELATIONSHIPS AND COMMUNITY FOR MINORITIZED GROUPS
CREATE ACCESS TO HIGH-STATUS RELATIONSHIPS
ORGANIZATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
DEFINING AND EXAMINING GATEKEEPERS
EXAMINING RACISM PERPETUATED BY GATEKEEPERS
GATEKEEPERS’ SOCIAL MOTIVES TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO
ORGANIZATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY WITHIN TEAMS: IMPACT ON TEAM PERFORMANCE
THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS: REDUCING PREJUDICE THROUGH INTERRACIAL INTERGROUP CONTACTS
INGROUP FAVORITISM AS A BARRIER TO THE DIVERSIFICATION OF STEMM TEAMS
AN OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONS, CULTURE, AND CLIMATE
THE RACIALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE TO CENTER ANTIRACISM, DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
1-2 Race Categories from the U.S. Census Bureau
3-1 What Is Race? What Is Ethnicity?
5-1 Finding Community on Social Media
8-2 Black Women, Natural Hair, and Discrimination
FIGURES
3-1 U.S. Census categories used over history
3-2 U.S. population trends by race and ethnicity, 2010–2019
3-3 U.S. annual population changes by race and ethnicity per year, 2010–2020
3-4 Racial and ethnic compositions of U.S. population by age
3-5 Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions by race/ethnicity
3-6 Representation of racial and ethnic groups in S&E degree recipients, 2018
3-7 Science and engineering associate’s degree attainment by race and ethnicity from 2011 and 2019
3-10 Individuals employed in S&E occupations in the United States, 1960–2019
3-11 Employed adults, by workforce, educational attainment, and race or ethnicity, 2019
3-12 Health and social assistance workers by detailed industry, 2019
3-13 Individuals employed in S&E occupations in the United States, 1960–2019
3-15 Salaries by gender, race, and ethnicity for workers in STEM occupations
5-1 Minoritized individuals’ responses to facing racial bias
6-1 Trends in White’s attitudes about racial intermarriage
8-1 Model of organizational culture
9-1 A summarized model of the levels of the research agenda
TABLES
S-1 Examples of Culture Change Frameworks for Organizations
8-1 Summaries of Culture Change Frameworks for Organizations
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
This report provides no simple answers to racial obstacles that date back beyond the origins of American history. The authors—a consensus committee of experts appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—were selected for their deep engagement on issues of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM); as such, we are well aware of the challenge in using evidence-based action to remedy unfair systems, structures, and institutions that advantage some and disadvantage others on the basis of race and ethnicity. Undaunted, we tackled our charge to identify racist and biased conditions that create systemic barriers and impede the full talent pool of our nation from pursuing and advancing in STEMM careers. This report recommends actionable strategies, based on the scientific evidence reviewed herein and based on the lived experiences of practicing STEMM scientists, engineers, and medical professionals.
Readers of this report may wonder why the National Academies was asked to focus on structural racism, as opposed to racism at individual and intrapersonal levels. As this report shows, based on decades of research and analysis, racial disparities in STEMM careers do not rest on individual deficiency in candidates or even primarily on the individual racism of institutional and organizational gatekeepers. Racism is embedded in our society. For example, wealth disparities across generations contribute to and result from segregated neighborhoods; segregated neighborhoods contribute to unequal school quality, which deprives whole student cohorts of the opportunity to consider, prepare, and enter a career in STEMM. Further, racial wealth gaps affect families’ ability to pay for STEMM college
(preparation, extracurricular experiences, tuition, and living expenses). Thus, creating conducive contexts will require structural changes, as recommended in this report.
Another example of structural racism addressed in this report rests in organizations’ arrangements to monitor, incentivize, and value diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is incumbent on organizations and institutions to address racial biases that individual decisionmakers are unlikely to notice, identify, or prioritize because, as the evidence shows, they may not recognize how their own, perhaps inadvertent, individual decisions contribute to overall patterns. The report reviews the diversity science that demonstrates and the lived experiences that exemplify how structural racism requires active antiracist change at a system level. This report’s formal conclusions and recommendations are bold, actionable, and, we believe, necessary.
This report was many years in the making, with many voices demanding its necessity. In July of 2015, members of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (chaired by Susan Fiske) sought funding to examine and understand police split-second choices to shoot unarmed Black men. Unfortunately, these efforts did not raise sufficient interest. However, in the summer of 2020, following the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests, federal agencies and private foundations prioritized sponsoring a National Academies report on antiracism and diversity, equity, and inclusion, focused on STEMM. With Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson’s call for the National Academies to act on this topic, it was an idea whose time had finally come.
Independently, the National Academies’ Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, founded and chaired by Cato Laurencin (and on which Gilda Barabino serves as a member), sponsored dozens of events on this and related topics. Among other priorities, members of the Roundtable underscored the need to include lived experience as well as social and behavioral science in an examination of antiracism and diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations.
As co-chairs, we bring different qualifications and experiences but a shared drive to work together to guide the study process. We offer our extended bios in Appendix E to illustrate with our respective lived experiences the report’s major themes: how the history of race impinges on the present-day disparities; the lived experience of race from both majority and minoritized groups, starting with school and going through careers, with increases in gatekeeping power; and discovering how systems affect individuals, small groups and teams, and organizations. The systems in place disadvantage some, to the advantage of others. Thus, we both seek to make the systems more equitable.
Each of the committee members has a distinctive biography and path to this report (see Appendix E). Just as no single path leads to a STEMM
career, each committee member’s unique experiences, scholarship, leadership, and service led them to this important work and added immeasurably to the report. So, too, the talented and dedicated National Academies staff, led by Layne Scherer and supported by Emily A. Vargas, kept us alert, organized, and on track for the high-speed journey from start to finish. We are grateful for the opportunity to offer evidence-based and experience-sensitive recommendations at this crucial juncture in our nation’s route to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM. On the way, we have encountered some who wonder about our approach.
Our work began with a thorough review of the literature to illuminate how historical policies, practices, and laws can have lasting effects. At the direction of our Statement of Task, the committee included lived experiences as an essential component of the evidence base. We reviewed the scientific evidence of how the roles of managers, decisionmakers, and gatekeepers contribute to and perpetuate patterns and practices that inhibit STEMM diversity, with intent or unconsciously. Finally, we examined rigorous studies of racial discrimination and the diversity science literatures, including the bases for inaccurate assumptions about interest in STEMM among marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Thus, the report shows that patterns exist in the data and are not matters of opinion or moral judgements.
We recognize that term racism may challenge some readers. The committee uses this term because it is scientifically accurate (as demonstrated in this report) and included in the committee’s charge, even if it makes readers uncomfortable. Despite the discomfort that accompanies complex and enduring social, cultural problems, we encourage readers to engage the evidence in this report and view the committee’s evidence-based recommendations to make STEMM settings more diverse, inclusive, and equitable—and more antiracist.
This report is written for those who aim for STEMM but encounter systemic obstacles—and for those in a position to remove the barriers and pave the way forward.
Gilda A. Barabino, Co-Chair
Susan T. Fiske, Co-Chair
Committee on Advancing Antiracism,
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Stem Organizations
This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms
| AAMC | American Association of Medical Colleges |
| AANAPISI | Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions |
| AAPI | Asian American and Pacific Islander |
| ACE | American Council on Education |
| HBCUs | Historically Black Colleges and Universities |
| HBLGUs | Historically Black Land-Grant Institutions |
| HSIs | Hispanic Serving Institutions |
| HWLGUs | Historically White Land-Grant Institutions |
| IRB | Institutional Review Board |
| MSIs | Minority Serving Institutions |
| NCES | National Center for Education Statistics |
| NCSES | National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics |
| NDB | National Institutes of Health’s Data Book |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| NSF | National Science Foundation |
| OMB | Office of Management and Budget |
| PI | Principal Investigator |
| PWI | Predominantly White Institution |
| SEM | Science, Engineering, and Medicine |
| STEM | Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics |
| STEMM | Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine |
| TCUs | Tribal Colleges and Universities |
